Re: good correlation?
Posted by Don in Hollister on March 06, 2003 at 20:00:23:

Hi John. I seriously doubt that EQF even knows what causes a major quake. It doesn’t matter what the position of the sun and moon are and all of those other things he talks about if the amount of stress for a major quake doesn’t exist there won’t be a major quake. In order to predict a major quake you have to know what the given amount of stress, or strain is at any given point. This is an unknown factor in most cases.

It is true that there are some good ideas as to where the next major quake in California is going to occur, but so far they haven’t. We have had some strong quakes in areas where no one was looking. As you well know Northridge took everyone by surprise as no one even knew there was a fault there. How many other places do we have that can blind-side us?

The one thing that really makes me wonder though is that in the past EQF has stated there are scientists around the world who listen to him. If that is the case then why does he continue to post here trying to convince us he can predict earthquakes? If they listen to him then he doesn’t need to convince anyone here. Anyway until as such time he makes a prediction for me to see I’ll never be convinced he can predict earthquakes.

I realize of course that it is immaterial as whether I believe him or not. However it seems that scientist around the world aren’t listening to him either as people are still dieing as the results of earthquakes. Maybe he didn’t contact them soon enough. If you make the prediction public then you don’t have contact anyone. The word will get out.

This is just my personal opinion, which for all purpose and intent doesn’t mean a thing. Take Care…Don in creepy town


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: good correlation? - EQF  12:54:47 - 3/7/2003  (18208)  (1)
        ● Re: good correlation? - Don in Hollister  22:43:33 - 3/7/2003  (18220)  (1)
           ● Re: good correlation? - EQF  22:17:46 - 3/8/2003  (18230)  (1)
              ● Triggers - Roger Hunter  14:57:52 - 3/11/2003  (18252)  (0)
     ● sounds right - John Vidale  20:40:50 - 3/6/2003  (18204)  (1)
        ● Re: sounds right - Petra Challus  23:41:30 - 3/6/2003  (18205)  (1)
           ● she must have meant on unknown fault - John Vidale  04:30:38 - 3/7/2003  (18206)  (3)
              ● Re: she must have meant on unknown fault - chris in suburbia  20:33:25 - 3/7/2003  (18217)  (1)
                 ● offshore faults - John Vidale  07:41:39 - 3/8/2003  (18221)  (1)
                    ● Re: offshore faults - chris in suburbia  12:11:32 - 3/8/2003  (18225)  (1)
                       ● tsunami evidence - John Vidale  12:31:55 - 3/8/2003  (18226)  (2)
                          ● Re: tsunami evidence - chris in suburbia  06:47:56 - 3/9/2003  (18233)  (1)
                             ● thanks for the info - John Vidale  09:00:35 - 3/9/2003  (18234)  (0)
                          ● Re: tsunami evidence - Canie  12:42:57 - 3/8/2003  (18227)  (0)
              ● not my specialty, but - John Vidale  19:10:46 - 3/7/2003  (18215)  (0)
              ● Re: she must have meant on unknown fault - Petra Challus  18:14:05 - 3/7/2003  (18211)  (1)
                 ● Re: she must have meant on unknown fault - chris in suburbia  20:40:38 - 3/7/2003  (18218)  (0)